Could it be possible that in relation to abortion evangelical Christians ever had anything in common with the pro-choice lobby? Their reputation today would suggest not. Concern though about unsafe abortions has been prominent again this week, with a report from the Guttmacher Institute, Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress, arguing that too many women around the world are still undergoing unsafe abortions, largely because it still remains illegal in 32 countries. They report that unsafe abortion causes 70,000 deaths each year, with 5 million women treated annually for complications, and are calling for an expansion of legal access to abortion.

I'm not sure though whether such statistics will change the minds of evangelicals on the abortion question. Yet recently I attended a research seminar, which suggested that the evangelical position on abortion has not always been as clear cut as it is currently. In fact, in 1967 when the abortion act was passed, significant numbers of evangelicals, including high profile leaders, were actually in support of the act.

Several reasons were put forward to explain this somewhat surprising historical position, including a reluctance to engage with society and politics, not wanting to impose their views on others and prominent evangelicals failing to lead the way, which influenced the average evangelical pastor to remain silent too. Somewhat unexpectedly, the clear theological position commonly held amongst evangelicals today that life begins at conception, was lacking. And significantly, concern about backstreet abortions and the danger they were causing influenced people's thinking, with evangelicals urged to show compassion rather than remaining dogmatic. Thus, a growing sense permeated that legalising abortion would be 'the lesser of the two evils'.

So why has the evangelical position shifted so markedly since 1967? Perhaps something of the answer lies in the statistics also reported this week that although the number of abortions has fallen, the figures still remain very high – from 45.5 million in 1995 to 41.6 million. Now, I would not be alone in arguing that 41.6 million abortions is far too many, even if the numbers have fallen – and other evangelicals would agree me. Many things start with good intentions and go on to have unseen and unintended consequences. In 1968, 23,641 abortions were carried out. By the 1990s, it was around 180,000 a year and now 1 in 5 pregnancies end in abortion with 98% being for social reasons and over 1,000 under 15s having an abortion each year. I doubt many in 1967 would have imagined the figures would ever be what they are today.

The abortion act was never intended to increase the number of abortions; this was certainly the belief of evangelicals at the time. It was meant rather to make backstreet abortions legal and safe: primarily because rich women could at least access relatively safe, while still illegal services but poor women could not. They were the ones suffering the most. So compassion suggested access to safe services for all women would be the better option. But since the 1970s, there has been mounting concern amongst evangelicals, as well as others, about the numbers of abortions carried out.

It may be encouraging that the number of abortions worldwide has declined. But there is still surely a very long way to go. Whatever your view on when life begins, the rights of the mother versus the rights of the child and whether it's the lesser of two evils or not, abortion is most likely something we view as complicated and far from ideal. And there is evidence that abortion often causes psychological damage to women. Indeed it was growing recognition of this in the 1970s that played a role in swaying the tide of evangelical opinion on the issue. Other factors included medical advances, advances in photography of the unborn child and a much stronger theological position that life began at conception, which was not prominent in 1967.

I find myself agreeing with the evangelicals of 1967 and the evangelicals of today: I long to see a reduction in the number of abortions carried out each year, both in the UK and globally, but I am glad that there are safe services women can access if they do chose abortion. I may protest about the 200,000 abortions a year in the UK, but I'm glad there are also people speaking up for the 70,000 women who die each year, mainly in developing countries, from unsafe abortions – just as people spoke up for the impoverished women in England in 1967. Compassion lies at the heart of both concern for the mother's safety, and a desire to see the number of abortions reduced.

Perhaps though, the report from the Guttmacher Institute can highlight a point of agreement between the pro-choice and pro-life lobbies: namely that we can agree a reduction in the number of abortions is needed. This was precisely the point President Barack Obama made in January this year. He said, "

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make.

Such a position is clearly nuanced – something that doesn't always suit the usually black and white agenda of both the pro-life and pro-choice lobbies. Neither does it usually suit evangelicals. Yet the Bible teaches very clearly that we live in a broken world. Such a world doesn't always allow for the black and white answers that some would like there to be on this issue; perhaps that's something the evangelicals of the 1960s understood.